RancidLunchmeat
Veteran
Crackdown 3, multiplayer battle royale with cheese, $30 or Free to Play with Game Pass!
Crackdown 3, Single Player - The Terry Crews Experience, $20 or Free to Play with Game Pass! (Release date: Fall, 2025)
Crackdown 3, Single Player - The Terry Crews Experience, $20 or Free to Play with Game Pass! (Release date: Fall, 2025)
Cynicalking
Regular
God damn it Microsoft. What the hell is up with your game studios? I was hoping for a surprise launch at E3.
I imagine they're having more problems crafting the MP experience than putting together a rehash of CD1.
:|I was thinking:
$40 SP ala ReCore mentality
F2P MP released when-it's-presentable - because what silly exec. would want to compete now with that certain F2P game by attaching an initial price barrier? Could have done bonuses for folks that have owned/played the SP. Then they can justify attempting to sell absurd power suit designs for X dollars.
Actually, I wonder if they are delaying it to add BR?
I suppose it could be more economical for spinning up fewer servers for larger groups, although the amount of destruction would scale up that much more, and they'd need more things to destroy lest it become a flat plain within a much shorter amount of time - more headaches for gameplay design, at least.
Gonna be a bit of an identity crisis if not a total reboot of what the multiplayer was originally if they're chasing after trends....a year(s) later. *sigh*
The whole gameplay with total destruction might be a nightmare to balance anyway. I can imagine it being too chaotic to be fun unless the destruction is lot more controlled and subdued. Then there are the complexities of three developers working on the same game. Then there's the change of the head of MS gaming who possibly has a different vision. And of course questions about whether the core online tech can be made to work robustly over players' less-than-ideal internet connections. Maybe there are questions about limiting the audience to those with good enough connections, or scaling back, or maybe (likely!) unexpected bugs with the whole streamed data solution.
Basically, we've no idea what's going on.
Basically, we've no idea what's going on.
RancidLunchmeat
Veteran
Do you need to really balance total destruction if you just do a battle royal game type? Drop players in the city, the boundaries shrink making the destruction less intensive and it's just chaos until everybody but one is dead.
Or, at least, that's how I'd do it. Not having played any of these BR games, I could be missing something.
Seems to me that the Crackdown universe, the vertical nature of agents and jumping from building to building, along with total destruction in an ever decreasing map wouldn't be that difficult to change course and implement and push out the door and would provide something a bit different than the current offerings.
Or, at least, that's how I'd do it. Not having played any of these BR games, I could be missing something.
Seems to me that the Crackdown universe, the vertical nature of agents and jumping from building to building, along with total destruction in an ever decreasing map wouldn't be that difficult to change course and implement and push out the door and would provide something a bit different than the current offerings.
They are based on skill and tactics. Getting killed by someone blasting a building causing some debris to fly across the map and hit you in the back wouldn't fit that.
Then again, the destruction might not be that bad. It's probably pretty obvious a building is going to fall down and it's your fault then if you stand still. That could also be pretty exciting too, with a localised fire-fight suddenly being interrupted by a building falling and all parties trying to find a way to escape without also getting shot.Silent_Buddha
Legend
Wouldn't that be ideal for a Battle Royale anyway?
The whole point of a BR is that when you start off, you have a lot of people with a fair chance of early engagements. Then the middle part of the game is relatively sparse engagements as you gear up and/or people hide. All the while you have shrinking areas of the map that make it more and more difficult to avoid other players until at the very end it's impossible to avoid other players thus forcing the final showdown.
Having all the buildings leveled at that point would absolutely serve to for the final showdown as no one would then be able to hide from anyone else.
Due to the verticality of the maps, you can have potentially smaller maps supporting say 100 players. You can also have shorter map times as players don't have to travel as much, say 10-20 minute matches.
Instead of a constantly shrinking circle, you have physics based building destruction. As towers fall, players have less places to hide. Not just unable to hide behind buildings, but on top of them or inside of them. Then at the end it's easy to spot all the other players and you have the final showdown.
It'd be a battle royale, but different enough to differentiate itself from other BRs that rely on larger maps and a mechanic of shrinking circles.
Regards,
SB
RancidLunchmeat
Veteran
You explained it much better than I did.
